This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

Locavore’s Dilemma: Book promotes not the 100-mile diet but the 10,000-mile diet.

Big is beautiful when it comes to our food supply, say the authors of the Locavore's Dilemma: In Praise of the 10,000-mile Diet.

Big is beautiful. Especially when it comes to food supply. That’s the message in The Locavore’s Dilemma: In Praise of the 10,000-Mile Diet, a book by Pierre Desrochers, an associate geography professor at the University of Toronto, and his wife, Hiroko Shimizu, a policy analyst. (ANDREW FRANCIS WALLACE / TORONTO STAR) | Order this photo

We attended a talk where a speaker described Japanese people as the most parasitic on earth because they import more food than anyone else per capita. My wife, born and raised in Tokyo, pointed out that the Japanese contribute a lot in terms of technology but don’t have enough room to grow food. Historically they have gone through periods of starvation and malnourishment. So what’s wrong with specializing in other stuff and importing food from countries with plenty of agricultural land? She prompted me to write a policy paper that turned into the book.

Not many people want a true 100-mile diet. Yet that’s what you argue against in your book. It seems as if you’re setting up a bogeyman.

If you want local in-season, we already have that. At the heart of this movement is replacing more affordable imported food with local food. The problem is that a lot of activists want to mandate it. In the U.S. there’s a movement to force military bases and government outlets to buy more expensive local food. At the University of Toronto, for example, a lot of people don’t like me because I question the rationale of spending more money on local food when you can get less expensive food and spend that money on other services for students.

Why do you dismiss the idea of “food miles” — the distance from farm to fork — as a greenhouse gas emissions measure?

Article Continued Below

It’s only true if everything else is equal. In the real world, not everything is equal. Some places have more water or better pasture land. It makes more sense to grow a tomato in an unheated greenhouse and truck it then to heat a local greenhouse. A U.S. study showed that about 4 per cent of food energy signature was from long-distance transportation and 83 per cent from production.

Doesn’t buying local food help those farmers and boost the local economy, even create jobs?

It destroys more jobs than it creates. Let’s say the same quality tomato is grown for $1 in Florida and $1.50 in Ontario. If you push the local one, you create tomato-growing jobs in Ontario. But consumers have 50 cents less to spend on other local services or goods, which destroys jobs. There’s a lot more consumers than producers. To create a few jobs you’re penalizing millions and the overall economic effect is detrimental.

Aren’t locally grown foods more nutritious?

If you grant the locavore argument that food is more nutritious when it’s fresher than it is while in season. But for the rest of the year you have to can, freeze or dry it, as opposed to eating global imports of fresh food.

What about taste? C’mon. An Ontario strawberry versus a journey-weary California one?

There has to be a better quality-price ratio. If the California strawberries are cheaper, they’re good enough for the yogurt shakes my wife makes. If I want to eat fresh strawberries, I’d go with local.

If global agribusiness is so great, why do we have 1 billion people without enough to eat? And millions more with obesity and other health effects from too much bad food?

The ratio of undernourished people today is about one in seven. In the 1950s it was about one in three. We’ve made progress. The undernourished are typically not part of the global food supply chain. As for fat people, it’s because people don’t exercise enough and eat too much junk.

Doesn’t local agriculture keep the food supply secure?

As with everything, you need to spread the risk. Local food activists want us to put all our agricultural security eggs in one regional basket. Historically this has been a recipe for disaster. You have floods, hail storms, diseases. It’s better to rely on multiple supplies, including local.

What about food safety? There are frequent recalls of tainted factory-processed foods.

Although not perfect, our food supply is safer than ever. Bigger operators have more knowledge, more control, more tracking. Bar codes on agribusiness products can trace a problem’s source.

If free markets dictate progress, isn’t the local food movement another link in the evolving supply chain, a new market?

It’s a fad. There have been plenty of local food movements in the last century and they never last long. People ultimately vote with their wallets. Local food producers will always have a place, but it may be a niche. They won’t survive by producing more expensive tomatoes.

Do you ever shop at farmers’ markets?

From time to time. We like to buy peaches in season. We produce very good peaches in this area.

You’re going to debate colleagues and others who promote buy-local. Will there be blood?

I hope so. Some of my colleagues are hardcore vegetarians. I might even defend meat-eating.

The local versus global diet debate will be held at 1 p.m. at the William G. Davis Building, Mississauga campus, University of Toronto. For more information, visit www.utm.utoronto.ca.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com